Why the Big 10 Rules-- and the SEC are Fools

[Mudge]

After reading some of the articles about the shakeups in college athletic conferences, I did some (modest) research on college budgets (overall, research, and athletic), particularly for some of the schools in the conferences most in the news lately. While I do not claim to be an expert in higher education finance, I still think it is readily apparent that the Big 10 (and certainly the Ivy League, which does not even bother to play the silly "sports really matter" game) has the real "money game" figured out, and the SEC is playing around with chump change. From my perspective, those who think the Big 10 is lying (when the Big 10 says that they care about academics) are totally missing where the real money in higher education is-- it's in research, not athletics. Here are some of the figures for some of the relevant schools:

School Overall Budget Research Budget Athletic Budget
Ohio State $5.2B $1.1B $142M
Michigan $5.5B $1.3B $129M
Wisconsin $3.0B $1.0B $102M
Indiana $2.3B $400M $72M
Purdue $2.2B $500M $71M
Nebraska $2.3B $530M $82M

Alabama $700M $70M $124M
Auburn $700M $80M $106M
Arkansas $650M $120M $100M
Florida $2.3B $1.1B $120M
Kentucky $2.5B $200M $86M

Louisville $1.2B $184M $88M
Duke $2.2B $600M $79M

Harvard $4.0B $700M $20M
Princeton $1.5B $270M $18M

Texas $2.4B $700M $163M

From what I can see from the above data, the Big 10 IS serious when they say that they are only interested in premier universities that are leaders in academic research-- schools that are in the AAU (Association of American Universities). The Big 10 isn't wasting their time on schools that are pipsqueaks, when it comes to overall budgets and particularly when it comes to research. Even the worst academic school in the Big 10 (Nebraska, which was just kicked out of the AAU) dwarfs most all of the SEC schools, when it comes to overall and research budget. The Big 10 would never be interested in most of the SEC schools, because these schools are academic midgets, when it comes to overall budgets and research budgets-- the only schools in the SEC that would interest the Big 10 would be Florida (large research budget, premier state university in that huge population state), and maybe Texas A&M, Missouri, and possibly Vanderbilt (though Vandy's small following makes them less attractive), because all of them are in the AAU (and are the only SEC schools in it)... the rest of the SEC schools think that punching above their weight in athletic budgets makes them big-time-- but it hardly makes up for their puny overall and research budgets. Similarly, I think the Big 10 would ultimately like to add Texas (along with Florida) before any other schools, at this point.

It should be noted that the Big 10 operates its own subsidiary of the AAU, that it calls the CIC (Committee on Institutional Cooperation) that consists of the 14 Big 10 members/invitees, plus the Univ. of Chicago, (which is a former founding member of the Big 10)-- and the main purpose of the CIC is to help harvest ever more research dollars for its members-- this is why the Big 10 DOES focus on academic reputation, despite what the ESPNs of the world would have you think-- the real money (as the IVY League, and MIT and CalTech have known forever) is in research-- not athletics.

P.S.-- Shockingly (to me at least), Duke actually has the 4th largest athletic budget in the ACC, with FSU and Virginia virtually tied at $81M, and Duke virtually tied with UNC, for third at $79M... I never would have guessed that Duke spends more on athletics than Clemson, NCSU, and VPI... you learn something new everyday...

[roywhite]

P.S.-- Shockingly (to me at least), Duke actually has the 4th largest athletic budget in the ACC, with FSU and Virginia virtually tied at $81M, and Duke virtually tied with UNC, for third at $79M... I never would have guessed that Duke spends more on athletics than Clemson, NCSU, and VPI... you learn something new everyday...

Not an insider or an expert on these numbers, but realize what the cost of a Duke scholarship is and multiply the number of students on athletic scholarship; that's a big element of cost for Duke, higher than the other schools you mentioned.

[Steven43]

After reading some of the articles about the shakeups in college athletic conferences, I did some (modest) research on college budgets (overall, research, and athletic), particularly for some of the schools in the conferences most in the news lately. While I do not claim to be an expert in higher education finance, I still think it is readily apparent that the Big 10 (and certainly the Ivy League, which does not even bother to play the silly "sports really matter" game) has the real "money game" figured out, and the SEC is playing around with chump change. From my perspective, those who think the Big 10 is lying (when the Big 10 says that they care about academics) are totally missing where the real money in higher education is-- it's in research, not athletics. Here are some of the figures for some of the relevant schools:

School Overall Budget Research Budget Athletic Budget
Ohio State $5.2B $1.1B $142M
Michigan $5.5B $1.3B $129M
Wisconsin $3.0B $1.0B $102M
Indiana $2.3B $400M $72M
Purdue $2.2B $500M $71M
Nebraska $2.3B $530M $82M

Alabama $700M $70M $124M
Auburn $700M $80M $106M
Arkansas $650M $120M $100M
Florida $2.3B $1.1B $120M
Kentucky $2.5B $200M $86M

Louisville $1.2B $184M $88M
Duke $2.2B $600M $79M

Harvard $4.0B $700M $20M
Princeton $1.5B $270M $18M

Texas $2.4B $700M $163M

From what I can see from the above data, the Big 10 IS serious when they say that they are only interested in premier universities that are leaders in academic research-- schools that are in the AAU (Association of American Universities). The Big 10 isn't wasting their time on schools that are pipsqueaks, when it comes to overall budgets and particularly when it comes to research. Even the worst academic school in the Big 10 (Nebraska, which was just kicked out of the AAU) dwarfs most all of the SEC schools, when it comes to overall and research budget. The Big 10 would never be interested in most of the SEC schools, because these schools are academic midgets, when it comes to overall budgets and research budgets-- the only schools in the SEC that would interest the Big 10 would be Florida (large research budget, premier state university in that huge population state), and maybe Texas A&M, Missouri, and possibly Vanderbilt (though Vandy's small following makes them less attractive), because all of them are in the AAU (and are the only SEC schools in it)... the rest of the SEC schools think that punching above their weight in athletic budgets makes them big-time-- but it hardly makes up for their puny overall and research budgets. Similarly, I think the Big 10 would ultimately like to add Texas (along with Florida) before any other schools, at this point.

It should be noted that the Big 10 operates its own subsidiary of the AAU, that it calls the CIC (Committee on Institutional Cooperation) that consists of the 14 Big 10 members/invitees, plus the Univ. of Chicago, (which is a former founding member of the Big 10)-- and the main purpose of the CIC is to help harvest ever more research dollars for its members-- this is why the Big 10 DOES focus on academic reputation, despite what the ESPNs of the world would have you think-- the real money (as the IVY League, and MIT and CalTech have known forever) is in research-- not athletics.

P.S.-- Shockingly (to me at least), Duke actually has the 4th largest athletic budget in the ACC, with FSU and Virginia virtually tied at $81M, and Duke virtually tied with UNC, for third at $79M... I never would have guessed that Duke spends more on athletics than Clemson, NCSU, and VPI... you learn something new everyday...
I have a very hard time believing that Ohio State, Wisconsin and Michigan spend between $1 billion and $1.3 billion on research while Duke and Harvard spend $600 million and $700 million, respectively. How can this be possible?

[ricks68]

After reading some of the articles about the shakeups in college athletic conferences, I did some (modest) research on college budgets (overall, research, and athletic), particularly for some of the schools in the conferences most in the news lately. While I do not claim to be an expert in higher education finance, I still think it is readily apparent that the Big 10 (and certainly the Ivy League, which does not even bother to play the silly "sports really matter" game) has the real "money game" figured out, and the SEC is playing around with chump change. From my perspective, those who think the Big 10 is lying (when the Big 10 says that they care about academics) are totally missing where the real money in higher education is-- it's in research, not athletics. Here are some of the figures for some of the relevant schools:

School Overall Budget Research Budget Athletic Budget
Ohio State $5.2B $1.1B $142M
Michigan $5.5B $1.3B $129M
Wisconsin $3.0B $1.0B $102M
Indiana $2.3B $400M $72M
Purdue $2.2B $500M $71M
Nebraska $2.3B $530M $82M

Alabama $700M $70M $124M
Auburn $700M $80M $106M
Arkansas $650M $120M $100M
Florida $2.3B $1.1B $120M
Kentucky $2.5B $200M $86M

Louisville $1.2B $184M $88M
Duke $2.2B $600M $79M

Harvard $4.0B $700M $20M
Princeton $1.5B $270M $18M

Texas $2.4B $700M $163M

From what I can see from the above data, the Big 10 IS serious when they say that they are only interested in premier universities that are leaders in academic research-- schools that are in the AAU (Association of American Universities). The Big 10 isn't wasting their time on schools that are pipsqueaks, when it comes to overall budgets and particularly when it comes to research. Even the worst academic school in the Big 10 (Nebraska, which was just kicked out of the AAU) dwarfs most all of the SEC schools, when it comes to overall and research budget. The Big 10 would never be interested in most of the SEC schools, because these schools are academic midgets, when it comes to overall budgets and research budgets-- the only schools in the SEC that would interest the Big 10 would be Florida (large research budget, premier state university in that huge population state), and maybe Texas A&M, Missouri, and possibly Vanderbilt (though Vandy's small following makes them less attractive), because all of them are in the AAU (and are the only SEC schools in it)... the rest of the SEC schools think that punching above their weight in athletic budgets makes them big-time-- but it hardly makes up for their puny overall and research budgets. Similarly, I think the Big 10 would ultimately like to add Texas (along with Florida) before any other schools, at this point.

It should be noted that the Big 10 operates its own subsidiary of the AAU, that it calls the CIC (Committee on Institutional Cooperation) that consists of the 14 Big 10 members/invitees, plus the Univ. of Chicago, (which is a former founding member of the Big 10)-- and the main purpose of the CIC is to help harvest ever more research dollars for its members-- this is why the Big 10 DOES focus on academic reputation, despite what the ESPNs of the world would have you think-- the real money (as the IVY League, and MIT and CalTech have known forever) is in research-- not athletics.

P.S.-- Shockingly (to me at least), Duke actually has the 4th largest athletic budget in the ACC, with FSU and Virginia virtually tied at $81M, and Duke virtually tied with UNC, for third at $79M... I never would have guessed that Duke spends more on athletics than Clemson, NCSU, and VPI... you learn something new everyday...

What I find pretty amazing is that a school with approximately 7 or 8+ times as many students as Duke, has a very similar overall and research budget---------Texas. From personal experience, I can tell you that the salaries at UT are well below the norm, as is the cost of tuition. Their endowment, however, is absolutely huge, as is their athletic budget.


ricks

[-bdbd]

I have a very hard time believing that Ohio State, Wisconsin and Michigan spend between $1 billion and $1.3 billion on research while Duke and Harvard spend $600 million and $700 million, respectively. How can this be possible?

That's because they're "researching" how to beat each other in Football!! :rolleyes:

But seriously, I would point out that there is a HUGE difference between the size of a school's research budget and the QUALITY of the education at said school. That element is usually gauged more on the quality of the educational product students generally gain by going there, and the selectivity of the school in terms of admissions. It also has to do with how much is actually invested (and is it well-invested) on the TEACHING side of the university. Some of the Big10 schools listed are simply beheamoths with huge state funding levels, but not much in terms of selectivity or academic stature. Looking at the list above, it is worth noting that by dividing the overall budget by the number of students you arrive at overall dollars spent per-student, producing very positive views of Duke, Harvard, Princeton, et al. versus the OSU's and Iowa's of the world.

In the post-defection "justifications" coming out of College Park, there was significant obfuscation regarding the purported "academic stature" of the Big10 over the ACC. And research budgets (and the Big10 pooling of research monies) was used as supposed evidence to this end. But my understanding of pooling would lead me to believe that it could just as easily COST Maryland research dollars and it could provide EXTRA funds to the school. And, anyway, that really has nothing to do with the academic stature/reputations/selectivity/benefit-to-the-common-student of most Big10 schools, which has schools ranked by US News (broadly lower than the ACC) at 12, 29, 41, 46, 46, 56, 65, 68, 68, 72, 72, 83, and 101. That is contrasted with the ACC (post-expansion 2013) at 8, 17, 24, 27, 30, 31, 36, 44, 58, 58, 58, 68, 72, 97, 106.

[ns7]

After reading some of the articles about the shakeups in college athletic conferences, I did some (modest) research on college budgets (overall, research, and athletic), particularly for some of the schools in the conferences most in the news lately. While I do not claim to be an expert in higher education finance, I still think it is readily apparent that the Big 10 (and certainly the Ivy League, which does not even bother to play the silly "sports really matter" game) has the real "money game" figured out, and the SEC is playing around with chump change. From my perspective, those who think the Big 10 is lying (when the Big 10 says that they care about academics) are totally missing where the real money in higher education is-- it's in research, not athletics. Here are some of the figures for some of the relevant schools:


Where did you get these numbers from? I've heard that the AAU is biased in how it classifies "research." For example, I've heard that some agricultural research doesn't count for the AAU. This obviously hurts the Southern and Texan schools.

Additionally, Wake Forest isn't in the AAU. Does this mean the ACC is "foolish" for having them as a member? Wake has an excellent undergraduate program. Why punish them for having a limited graduate school?

[Mudge]

I have a very hard time believing that Ohio State, Wisconsin and Michigan spend between $1 billion and $1.3 billion on research while Duke and Harvard spend $600 million and $700 million, respectively. How can this be possible?

I don't pretend to know all the reasons, but I would imagine one of reasons is: vastly larger faculties (at the Big 10 schools), with more professors to "win" the research dollars available to be earned from various public and private sources-- and, in particular, much larger engineering departments, which (along with natural sciences and medicine) tend to be the real big sources of research grants-- money for liberal arts grants in humanities, arts, etc., tends to be much more limited. You've got to remember that Ohio State has over 56,000 students, while Michigan and Wisconsin are in the 40,000 range-- Duke (with ~10,000 total) has done really well in moving up to punch well above its weight in research grants/budgets, in my estimation, because of its huge medical center, and the enormous expansion of Duke's Engineering school's facilities and resources. In fact, I am impressed that Duke is as close as it is to Harvard, given Harvard's vastly larger range of programs and numbers of grad students-- and Harvard's longer established traditions in virtually every field.

If you want to see some guys REALLY punching above their weight in research grants, check out MIT and CalTech-- CalTech has less than 1000 students, but their research budget is amazingly large, as is MIT's (though MIT is quite a bit bigger in number of students).

[Mudge]

Where did you get these numbers from? I've heard that the AAU is biased in how it classifies "research." For example, I've heard that some agricultural research doesn't count for the AAU. This obviously hurts the Southern and Texan schools.

Additionally, Wake Forest isn't in the AAU. Does this mean the ACC is "foolish" for having them as a member? Wake has an excellent undergraduate program. Why punish them for having a limited graduate school?

The numbers above aren't gospel-- some numbers are for 2010-2011 year, some for 2011-2012, and some for 2012-2013-- I had to take what I could get (but the numbers are probably good enough for comparative purposes, given the huge disparities between the SEC schools, and the serious academic schools). I got the numbers by going to each school's website, and looking up their budget numbers. So, for example, Nebraska (which was just recently thrown out of the AAU, for not meeting their standards for scholarship and research, in part because they claim they weren't given proper credit for agricultural research) was given credit for whatever research money that they characterized as being from various grant sources-- you'll note that they were credited with a pretty substantial research budget in my table. The numbers for the Southern schools also came from their own budget documents.

I don't think that excuse can explain away the Southern schools' overemphasis on athletics in general, and football in particular, in the larger scheme of their budgets-- it feels to me like the South is still trying to win the Civil War by winning at college football today, still not recognizing that that is a fool's errand... just like having most of the best generals in the start of the Civil War (because Southerners dominated the enrollment at West Point, VMI, the Citadel, etc., before the war began) never made up for the fact that the North had far more people, who created far more factories, that could (and did) churn out far more weapons and supplies to better equip far larger armies than the South could ever hope to have-- the SEC schools are focusing on mostly the wrong things, if their primary purpose is supposed to be to educate their local populace and elevate the economic conditions of their states-- but there's nothing new about that.

As for Wake Forest and the ACC, I said nothing about them-- the ACC has numerous schools which are not in the AAU-- Clemson, FSU, NCSU, VPI, BC, ND, Miami, Louisville, Syracuse (another recent reject), all join Wake on the AAU non-member list... only UVa, UNC, GIT, and Pitt join Duke on the member list. I think the ACC is not in as good a negotiating position as the Big 10 to say who they will and won't take-- for now, the ACC probably will be happy to hang on to whomever they've got at the moment.

[Mudge]

That's because they're "researching" how to beat each other in Football!! :rolleyes:

But seriously, I would point out that there is a HUGE difference between the size of a school's research budget and the QUALITY of the education at said school. That element is usually gauged more on the quality of the educational product students generally gain by going there, and the selectivity of the school in terms of admissions. It also has to do with how much is actually invested (and is it well-invested) on the TEACHING side of the university. Some of the Big10 schools listed are simply beheamoths with huge state funding levels, but not much in terms of selectivity or academic stature. Looking at the list above, it is worth noting that by dividing the overall budget by the number of students you arrive at overall dollars spent per-student, producing very positive views of Duke, Harvard, Princeton, et al. versus the OSU's and Iowa's of the world.

In the post-defection "justifications" coming out of College Park, there was significant obfuscation regarding the purported "academic stature" of the Big10 over the ACC. And research budgets (and the Big10 pooling of research monies) was used as supposed evidence to this end. But my understanding of pooling would lead me to believe that it could just as easily COST Maryland research dollars and it could provide EXTRA funds to the school. And, anyway, that really has nothing to do with the academic stature/reputations/selectivity/benefit-to-the-common-student of most Big10 schools, which has schools ranked by US News (broadly lower than the ACC) at 12, 29, 41, 46, 46, 56, 65, 68, 68, 72, 72, 83, and 101. That is contrasted with the ACC (post-expansion 2013) at 8, 17, 24, 27, 30, 31, 36, 44, 58, 58, 58, 68, 72, 97, 106.

I did not slam the ACC's academic standing vis a` vis the Big 10-- I think there is a strong argument to be made for the general academic quality of both leagues-- though I do not think the ACC is enhanced by adding Louisville and subtracting Maryland. I also think you are underestimating the quality of the education (despite their large size) at places like Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio State, etc.-- Michigan and Northwestern are fairly known quantities, but many of the other Big 10 schools are as good or better than some of the ACC schools (like NCSU, Clemson, FSU)... but I am absolutely more convinced (after this study) that the Big 10 schools hold a substantial edge in academic quality over the SEC schools, on average-- and that isn't measured just in research dollars, but also in all of the other things that the AAU (and US News & World Report) use to measure the academic quality of a school, such as admission selectivity and faculty research citations and awards.

[davekay1971]

Count me in the category of those who don't care much about the academic standing of members of an athletic conference. I graduated from Duke. That degree carries weight because Duke University is one of the best in the nation...not because the schools we're paired to play against in sports are good, bad, or indifferent. If Duke belongs to a conference that will allow the school to have a good balance line in the authentic budget vs. revenue equation, and will allow me to enjoy seeing my alma mater's teams compete, great. Whether Clemson or UNC is a good or bad school academically doesn't affect how good Duke is academically, and doesn't affect my enjoyment when watching Duke beat them on the basketball court one iota.

Am I mistaken in looking at Duke's academic standing, research capabilities and budget, etc, as being largely independent from those of our athletic partners?

[Newton_14]

Getting back to the Football side of the equation, there are 9 SEC teams playing in Bowl games, and all 9 are favored. There are 7 Big Ten teams playing in Bowl games, and all 7 are underdogs...

[roywhite]

Count me in the category of those who don't care much about the academic standing of members of an athletic conference. I graduated from Duke. That degree carries weight because Duke University is one of the best in the nation...not because the schools we're paired to play against in sports are good, bad, or indifferent. If Duke belongs to a conference that will allow the school to have a good balance line in the authentic budget vs. revenue equation, and will allow me to enjoy seeing my alma mater's teams compete, great. Whether Clemson or UNC is a good or bad school academically doesn't affect how good Duke is academically, and doesn't affect my enjoyment when watching Duke beat them on the basketball court one iota.

Am I mistaken in looking at Duke's academic standing, research capabilities and budget, etc, as being largely independent from those of our athletic partners?

Seems like your position is reasonable.

I have read that some B1G schools DO recognize some synergy and benefit in cooperative research and efforts with the faculty of other conference members. Not in any position to verify that myself, and don't know if the same may hold true in the ACC.

Perhaps some Duke faculty members or administrators could speak to this?

[DueBlevil]

I have a very hard time believing that Ohio State, Wisconsin and Michigan spend between $1 billion and $1.3 billion on research while Duke and Harvard spend $600 million and $700 million, respectively. How can this be possible?

For Harvard, this number is a little deflated. A very large percentage of research for a university comes from its medical center, except in certain cases (MIT for example, which does not have a medical school, but is involved in a great deal of biomedical research). The research revenue for Harvard proper does not include all research revenue done by Harvard faculty--this is because Harvard has a medical school but it does not actually operate a hospital. All of the faculty at Mass General, Brigham, Beth Israel, Boston Children's, Dana-Farber, and so on, have Harvard faculty appointments and are considered part of Harvard Medical school. NIH revenue from these 4 institutions alone is over $1 billion. Just FYI

[House G]

The numbers above aren't gospel-- some numbers are for 2010-2011 year, some for 2011-2012, and some for 2012-2013-- I had to take what I could get (but the numbers are probably good enough for comparative purposes, given the huge disparities between the SEC schools, and the serious academic schools). I got the numbers by going to each school's website, and looking up their budget numbers. So, for example, Nebraska (which was just recently thrown out of the AAU, for not meeting their standards for scholarship and research, in part because they claim they weren't given proper credit for agricultural research) was given credit for whatever research money that they characterized as being from various grant sources-- you'll note that they were credited with a pretty substantial research budget in my table. The numbers for the Southern schools also came from their own budget documents.

I don't think that excuse can explain away the Southern schools' overemphasis on athletics in general, and football in particular, in the larger scheme of their budgets-- it feels to me like the South is still trying to win the Civil War by winning at college football today, still not recognizing that that is a fool's errand... just like having most of the best generals in the start of the Civil War (because Southerners dominated the enrollment at West Point, VMI, the Citadel, etc., before the war began) never made up for the fact that the North had far more people, who created far more factories, that could (and did) churn out far more weapons and supplies to better equip far larger armies than the South could ever hope to have-- the SEC schools are focusing on mostly the

wrong things, if their primary purpose is supposed to be to educate their local populace and elevate the economic conditions of their states-- but there's nothing new about that.

As for Wake Forest and the ACC, I said nothing about them-- the ACC has numerous schools which are not in the AAU-- Clemson, FSU, NCSU, VPI, BC, ND, Miami, Louisville, Syracuse (another recent reject), all join Wake on the AAU non-member list... only UVa, UNC, GIT, and Pitt join Duke on the member list. I think the ACC is not in as good a negotiating position as the Big 10 to say who they will and won't take-- for now, the ACC probably will be happy to hang on to whomever they've got at the moment.

Last time I checked, North Carolina was one of the Confederate states. Is it a fool's errand for Duke, Wake, UNC, etc. to "overemphasize" basketball? I personally do not believe that pursuit of academic excellence and athletic excellence are mutually exclusive endeavors. The implication that one cannot obtain a good education at many of these SEC schools is, in my opinion, misguided.

[TheDevilMadeMeDoIt]

This rates as one of the most interesting discussions I have ever read on a sports blog. Perhaps our society in general should wake up and demand the same excellence in academics that many schools only demand in their football team. Please don't think for a moment that I want Duke to be an also ran in football. I am as avid as any fan on this board, but there has to be some balance or eventually the whole football bubble in the BCS will pop.

[tommy]

These numbers and what they mean are very interesting. Appreciate everyone's contributions here. Maybe someone can explain one thing to me that I haven't understood in all the conversations about conference realignment and the impact of academic reputation and research dollars, etc. on that realignment:

What concrete, on-the-ground effect does the athletic conference a school is in have on its ability to attract research dollars and grow its research budget? When a foundation or some other funding source is looking which university's biomedical engineering researcher to bestow its grant upon, sure, it makes sense that the foundation might prefer to make the grant to a school that is associated with other top academic institutions through the AAU or CIC -- that it's associated with other top academic institutions through academic-type organizations. But why would the foundation or funder care who a school sends its mens basketball players to play against on Saturday afternoons or who it sends its womens volleyball players to play against on Tuesday nights? Why would the funder care if Duke's sports teams are playing against UVA and Pitt or against Clemson? Thanks.

[sagegrouse]

These numbers and what they mean are very interesting. Appreciate everyone's contributions here. Maybe someone can explain one thing to me that I haven't understood in all the conversations about conference realignment and the impact of academic reputation and research dollars, etc. on that realignment:

What concrete, on-the-ground effect does the athletic conference a school is in have on its ability to attract research dollars and grow its research budget? When a foundation or some other funding source is looking which university's biomedical engineering researcher to bestow its grant upon, sure, it makes sense that the foundation might prefer to make the grant to a school that is associated with other top academic institutions through the AAU or CIC -- that it's associated with other top academic institutions through academic-type organizations. But why would the foundation or funder care who a school sends its mens basketball players to play against on Saturday afternoons or who it sends its womens volleyball players to play against on Tuesday nights? Why would the funder care if Duke's sports teams are playing against UVA and Pitt or against Clemson? Thanks.

In my limited experience, government and foundation grants go to principal investigators with a track record, really good ideas, and expertise in fields attracting funding. In most fields, labs and facilities are a part of the equation. Does institutional rep matter? Of course. But the rep is often at the departmental level. And, of course, Div III MIT and Caltech don't get penalized for the lack of athletic teams.

"Athletics are the front porch of the university," sayeth Frank Broyles. Do greater school spirit and curb presence induce alumni and other donors to give funds for academic programs? Probably. And it sure doesn't hurt the funds appropriated by state governments for the state universities. And it attracts students, which require more professors, all of whom have research interests ("publish or perish" is alive and well in most of academia).

The Big Ten schools are really big. So, the phenomenom where Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio State swamp the Ivies in research bucks reflects the huge size of the faculties and the full range of academic programs in these schools with 50,000 students. Thus, the ability to attract students and state government support for big universities eventually affects research. And, of course, the Big Ten schools have been good for a long time. Does athletics play a role in creating this size. I expect so. Otherwise, why would just about every state or land grant university devote huge resources and institutional attention to athletics.

Therefore, athletics probably has a large but very indirect effect, helping build the size of the university and the faculty, attracting a lot more alumni and state funds, and eventually leading to more government and foundation grants -- institutions that care little about athletics.

I hope this made sense, but I have my doubts.

sagegrouse

[devildeac]

Getting back to the Football side of the equation, there are 9 SEC teams playing in Bowl games, and all 9 are favored. There are 7 Big Ten teams playing in Bowl games, and all 7 are underdogs...

It's a basketball conference, silly. That's why the terps joined;):rolleyes:.

[-bdbd]

I did not slam the ACC's academic standing vis a` vis the Big 10-- I think there is a strong argument to be made for the general academic quality of both leagues-- though I do not think the ACC is enhanced by adding Louisville and subtracting Maryland. I also think you are underestimating the quality of the education (despite their large size) at places like Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio State, etc.-- Michigan and Northwestern are fairly known quantities, but many of the other Big 10 schools are as good or better than some of the ACC schools (like NCSU, Clemson, FSU)... but I am absolutely more convinced (after this study) that the Big 10 schools hold a substantial edge in academic quality over the SEC schools, on average-- and that isn't measured just in research dollars, but also in all of the other things that the AAU (and US News & World Report) use to measure the academic quality of a school, such as admission selectivity and faculty research citations and awards.

Mudge, good points. But I wasn't saying that you'd slammed ACC academics. I was just making a second, independent point on the same subject. I get quite irritated residing in the DC area and repeatedly hearing all of the MD justifications for the defection to the Big10 all the time -- particularly that it was a step UP for academics. It was not. And their "academic" justifications usually turn on a subject very close to the one you raised, comparing research dollars of the two leagues (and the Big10 program that pools much of those funds). BTW, based on the US News rankings the ACC overall is clearly the better of the two conferences, though obviously there is some rankings overlap among some schools. Aside, if you look at the ranking numbers I listed from US News, ironically, the three ACC schools that you name as comparative to the Big10, happen to be the very last three ACC school rankings I listed - Clemson (72), then NCSU (83), then FSU (101). But the ACC has about half of its league in the top-40, whereas the Big10 has just TWO schools there.

While I don't think, at this juncture, that the decision to add Louisville was a bad one - especially given their FB and BB strengths - it does sadden me that academics has clearly taken a distinct back seat to other considerations in choosing conference partners for the ACC, which I still hold to be the best D1 conference for academics. And I think the league leadership has long felt that way, which contributed to the decisions on other recent additions, Pitt, Syracuse and Notre Dame. But I'm guessing L'ville's addition was partially to appease ACC FB powers FSU and Clemson by adding some FB strength - a trend I don't expect to change next time either.

While the whole "rankings" discussion can be given too much weight, certainly, I do still struggle with why the average student cares about how much research money is spent at their school. Isn't overall school ranking much more relevant to that average kid than what research is being done/spent miles away in the back of the Medical Center or Applied Sciences buildings...

[Greg_Newton]

What concrete, on-the-ground effect does the athletic conference a school is in have on its ability to attract research dollars and grow its research budget?

I've been trying to figure out the answer to this question myself, and have yet to hear a great explanation. I feel like there must be one, but I have no idea what it is.

gumbo, I hear what you're saying, but that speaks more to the value of having strong athletics in general. What I don't understand is the benefit of being in an "academically strong" athletic conference. Ivy League, sure, due to name recognition, but no one proudly attends or donates to Duke because it's an "ACC school" academically. Is the idea that people will cross network with other smart people at tailgates, or something?

Whatever the practical benefit is, I have a feeling it will become even more marginalized if we keep heading towards 16-team superconferences. Most major conferences have already started losing any historical identity and meaning they might have had, and it's not like you're going to get much academic value from banding together with a particular set of fifteen random football programs to leverage a TV deal.

[Mudge]

Count me in the category of those who don't care much about the academic standing of members of an athletic conference. I graduated from Duke. That degree carries weight because Duke University is one of the best in the nation...not because the schools we're paired to play against in sports are good, bad, or indifferent. If Duke belongs to a conference that will allow the school to have a good balance line in the authentic budget vs. revenue equation, and will allow me to enjoy seeing my alma mater's teams compete, great. Whether Clemson or UNC is a good or bad school academically doesn't affect how good Duke is academically, and doesn't affect my enjoyment when watching Duke beat them on the basketball court one iota.

Am I mistaken in looking at Duke's academic standing, research capabilities and budget, etc, as being largely independent from those of our athletic partners?

Yes, I think you are mistaken to look at your school's academic pursuits in isolation of its athletic associations-- because the Big 10 is NOT playing the same game anymore (or more accurately hasn't been playing the same game, since it formed the CIC)-- the Big 10 schools collaborate as a cartel only with other Big 10/CIC schools to win/earn research money, and as the data I posted above indicates, they have been far more successful in those efforts than most of the SEC schools have been.

I think the Big 10 schools may even (secretly) like the fact that the SEC schools are spending a disproportionate amount of their total budgets on football programs and football coaches, because the Big 10 schools recognize that that is a sucker's game; there is a limited amount of money available to any institution, and the SEC schools (generally) are only matching or exceeding the Big 10 schools in one area-- athletics (i.e.- football) spending-- and it seriously weakens those Southern schools in the game that really matters. You drive (play football) for show, and putt (conduct research) for dough. The Big 10 schools know that the big (research) money (which, by the way, dwarfs the entire athletic budget at every Big 10 and SEC school) is brought in by top notch faculty & academic facilities, and that if they started trying to win bidding wars for football coaches (as Alabama, LSU, and Arkansas seem to think is appropriate), their faculty would be up in arms and go on the rampage; unlike at places like FSU, where the President of that university (a former FSU football player- hah) didn't give a damn what his faculty thought or wanted, the faculty at premier universities rule the roost (as we have seen numerous times at Harvard-- like when they forced out Larry Summers as President with a simple no-confidence vote, or when they caused the phenomenal manager of the Harvard endowment to resign by constantly complaining about his pay-- which they probably regret now, because it cost their endowment about $10B, and caused a major Harvard science research facility expansion to be delayed for a number of years)...

It seems to me that academically prestigious schools see better ways to spend their resources than hiring the best football coach (and team) that money can buy. Take a look at the size of the Univ. of Wisconsin's overall budget and endowment, and compare that with the Univ. of Arkansas' budget and endowment-- do you really think that Wisconsin would have any trouble outbidding Arkansas for a football coach, if they wanted to? I don't think so-- they choose not to, in part to keep the peace with their faculty. In fact, I've always maintained that the Ivy League would rule all the sports, if they wanted to, because none of the other schools in the country (except Stanford) could afford to compete with Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, if they decided to thrown their endowment and alumni money around-- Tommy Amaker and Johnny Dawkins would be the two highest-paid coaches in college basketball, and Harvard and Yale would have Nick Saban and Urban Meyer (or Bill Belichick) coaching for them... but there's a reason you haven't heard a peep out of the Ivy League amidst all the hubbub among the other Div. I NCAA schools-- they already know that they are playing the game that really matters the right way, and they don't see any reason to wise-up all the suckers around them that don't get that the joke is on them-- nor does the Big 10.

Honestly, I'm a bit surprised that anyone from Duke would doubt the advantages of collaborating with affiliated conference schools on research-- given the benefits that the Research Triangle (a research collaboration between NCSU, UNC, and Duke) have brought to the Triangle area and North Carolina. Have you ever noticed that the stories about the Research Triangle never mention anything about the participation of NCCU, or Meredith College (in Raleigh), or any other Triangle colleges, as members of the RTP collaborative? I have seen the collaboration of Duke, UNC, and NCSU in numerous other tangible assets, from the linear accelerator on Duke's West Campus (shared between the 3 schools) to the original mainframe computer (TUCC- Triangle Universities Computing Center) that they used to share. Duke and UNC even have a joint scholarship program (the Robertson scholars) which allows the participants (some of the top students at each school) to take classes at both colleges.

[ns7]

The numbers above aren't gospel-- some numbers are for 2010-2011 year, some for 2011-2012, and some for 2012-2013-- I had to take what I could get (but the numbers are probably good enough for comparative purposes, given the huge disparities between the SEC schools, and the serious academic schools). I got the numbers by going to each school's website, and looking up their budget numbers. So, for example, Nebraska (which was just recently thrown out of the AAU, for not meeting their standards for scholarship and research, in part because they claim they weren't given proper credit for agricultural research) was given credit for whatever research money that they characterized as being from various grant sources-- you'll note that they were credited with a pretty substantial research budget in my table. The numbers for the Southern schools also came from their own budget documents.

Thank you for your explanation.


I don't think that excuse can explain away the Southern schools' overemphasis on athletics in general, and football in particular, in the larger scheme of their budgets-- it feels to me like the South is still trying to win the Civil War by winning at college football today, still not recognizing that that is a fool's errand... just like having most of the best generals in the start of the Civil War (because Southerners dominated the enrollment at West Point, VMI, the Citadel, etc., before the war began) never made up for the fact that the North had far more people, who created far more factories, that could (and did) churn out far more weapons and supplies to better equip far larger armies than the South could ever hope to have-- the SEC schools are focusing on mostly the wrong things, if their primary purpose is supposed to be to educate their local populace and elevate the economic conditions of their states-- but there's nothing new about that.

Are the SEC schools focusing on the wrong things? I believe that every SEC school's athletic department is profitable and most return money to the school. Additionally, football subsidizes all the other athletic programs (with the exception of basketball). So how are the SEC schools wasting money? I would argue it's the opposite: they are using football to generate money and awareness for the school.


As for Wake Forest and the ACC, I said nothing about them-- the ACC has numerous schools which are not in the AAU-- Clemson, FSU, NCSU, VPI, BC, ND, Miami, Louisville, Syracuse (another recent reject), all join Wake on the AAU non-member list... only UVa, UNC, GIT, and Pitt join Duke on the member list. I think the ACC is not in as good a negotiating position as the Big 10 to say who they will and won't take-- for now, the ACC probably will be happy to hang on to whomever they've got at the moment.

I believe the ACC is not in a good negotiating position precisely for the opposite reason as yours. That is, the conference doesn't have strong enough football, whereas the B1G does.

[Billax]

...it does sadden me that academics has clearly taken a distinct back seat to other considerations in choosing conference partners for the ACC, which I still hold to be the best D1 conference for academics.

A nit, to be sure, but the Ivy League is NCAA DI in all sports, though their Football teams are FCS DI and not FBS DI. I presume you intended to exclude FCS DI Football schools from your assertion.

[Mike Corey]

From here (http://mup.asu.edu/research.html).

Total research expenditures:

(2) M*chigan
(3) Wisconsin
(7) Duke
(9) Minnesota
(12) Ohio State
(13) Stanford (just as a measuring stick)
(15) Penn State
(17) UNC
(20) Pittsburgh
(25) Illinois
(26) Georgia Tech
(28) Northwestern
(30) Texas
(33) Purdue
(39) Maryland
(41) Virginia Tech
(44) N.C. State
(47) Michigan State
(57) Iowa
(59) Rutgers
(72) Virginia
(76) Miami
(78) Nebraska
(91) Wake Forest
(93) Florida State
(99) Clemson
(104) Indiana
(111) Louisville
(118) UConn
(134) Temple
(139) Notre Dame
(197) Boston College
(198) Syracuse

[johnpope]

I think the Big 10 schools may even (secretly) like the fact that the SEC schools are spending a disproportionate amount of their total budgets on football programs and football coaches, because the Big 10 schools recognize that that is a sucker's game; there is a limited amount of money available to any institution, and the SEC schools (generally) are only matching or exceeding the Big 10 schools in one area-- athletics (i.e.- football) spending-- and it seriously weakens those Southern schools in the game that really matters. You drive (play football) for show, and putt (conduct research) for dough. The Big 10 schools know that the big (research) money (which, by the way, dwarfs the entire athletic budget at every Big 10 and SEC school) is brought in by top notch faculty & academic facilities, and that if they started trying to win bidding wars for football coaches (as Alabama, LSU, and Arkansas seem to think is appropriate), their faculty would be up in arms and go on the rampage; unlike at places like FSU, where the President of that university (a former FSU football player- hah) didn't give a damn what his faculty thought or wanted, the faculty at premier universities rule the roost (as we have seen numerous times at Harvard-- like when they forced out Larry Summers as President with a simple no-confidence vote, or when they caused the phenomenal manager of the Harvard endowment to resign by constantly complaining about his pay-- which they probably regret now, because it cost their endowment about $10B, and caused a major Harvard science research facility expansion to be delayed for a number of years)...

It seems to me that academically prestigious schools see better ways to spend their resources than hiring the best football coach (and team) that money can buy. Take a look at the size of the Univ. of Wisconsin's overall budget and endowment, and compare that with the Univ. of Arkansas' budget and endowment-- do you really think that Wisconsin would have any trouble outbidding Arkansas for a football coach, if they wanted to? I don't think so-- they choose not to, in part to keep the peace with their faculty. In fact, I've always maintained that the Ivy League would rule all the sports, if they wanted to, because none of the other schools in the country (except Stanford) could afford to compete with Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, if they decided to thrown their endowment and alumni money around-- Tommy Amaker and Johnny Dawkins would be the two highest-paid coaches in college basketball, and Harvard and Yale would have Nick Saban and Urban Meyer (or Bill Belichick) coaching for them... but there's a reason you haven't heard a peep out of the Ivy League amidst all the hubbub among the other Div. I NCAA schools-- they already know that they are playing the game that really matters the right way, and they don't see any reason to wise-up all the suckers around them that don't get that the joke is on them-- nor does the Big 10.


I'm sorry but this sounds completely insane, Harvad and Yale and Princeton out-recruiting Bama and LSU!!! Let's be honest, how many high school football superstars could cut it at an Ivy League school academically? Also, big schools have big alumni bases who care about football and come to games, it's part of the culture. They also are from the state/live in the state for many Southern football schools. Ivy alums are from all over and move out to big cities or abroad. Except for Stanford (and ND for specific reasons having to do with their unique Catholicism and historical tradition) the alumni of no other top academic institution care for about their alma mater football program in big numbers.

You're missing another huge element: SIZE MATTERS. Measuring research budgets doesn't tell you much of anything about the quality of the education. If you have 800 students in a class, who cares that a top-earning researcher is lecturing it? As a Duke PhD, I can tell you I wouldn't let my kids nowhere near any B1G schools where they would get no attention from the top-names academics there who only care about research. That's why, as said earlier, only 2 B1G schools are in US NEWS top 40. Most schools who care about teaching are much, much smaller, and they only have great sports in very rare instances (Duke, ND, Stanford). It is what it is, and it makes no sense for me to make the kind of argument that you're making re: the connection or tradeoff between sports and academics. There is none. Let the Bamas and Auburns of the world have their football, God knows there's not much else in that state to be excited about. And please don't patronize them by claiming they're dumber cause they care about their sports teams to death. Live and let live.